[MD] Where does logic itself belong inside the MOQ?

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Steve

Sat Jan 2. u wrote
 
> Logic is a set of intellectual patterns. It includes much of the
> criteria we have invented to judge the quality of other intellectual
> patterns and the guidelines for creating new high quality intellectual
> patterns. It is best to think of logic as descriptive rather than
> prescriptive in its origin so as not to make the mistake of thinking that
> logic predates the inorganic patterns that it does such a good job of
> describing.

OK, formal Logic - the academical discipline - is intellect, but the 4th. 
level is the last and there were aeons when the inorganic was the sole 
static layer and all logical - what to call them .. contexts were as valid 
then as now. They possibly ARE the inorganic level itself and as such 
the first static fall-out. Pirsig's - and your - position of everything = 
intellectual and intellect = thinking is plain idealism.      

> Some LC annotations that relate to distinguishing the types of
> patterns and SOLAQI:
 
And then Pirsig:

    43. This seems too restrictive. It seems to exclude non-
    subject-object constructions such as symbolic logic, higher 
    mathematics, and computer languages from the intellectual 
    level and give them no home.  

Well, here it is: "Symbolic logic" (calculation) mathematics (ditto), 
computer language (just language) all builds on LOGIC ITSELF, and 
this only arriving with the last level makes no sense. Or worse, it 
makes the 4th. level the discoverer of objective knowledge hanging 
around waiting for "the Greeks to discover them". Something maybe 
in tune with Pirsig's mind-intellect, but not with Phaedrus SOM-
intellect.  

    Also the term quality as used in the MOQ would be excluded 
    from the intellectual level. In fact, the MOQ, which gives 
    intellectual meaning to the term quality, would also have to be 
    excluded from the intellectual level. If we just say the intellect 
    is the manipulation of language-derived symbols for 
    experience these problems of excessive exclusion do not 
    seem to occur  

The term "quality" as used by the intellectual level merely indicated 
some subjective like-or-dislike. Once Quality - as used by Phaedrus 
in ZAMM - occurred it was no longer a SOM "idea" but what spawned 
SOM, which was to become the intellectual level had Pirsig carried 
Phaedrus insight on. And then the "manipulation of symbols" 
definition that makes the 4th level into a language level. But the effort 
to reject the true MOQ had become a must and nothing were spared 
in that struggle.  

    45. After the beginning of history inorganic, biological, social 
    and intellectual patterns are found existing together in the 
    same person. I think the conflicts mentioned here are 
    intellectual conflicts in which one side clings to an intellectual 
    justification of existing social patterns and the other side 
    intellectually opposes the existing social patterns....

I'm not sure what his pertains to, but here again is the "intelligence-
intellect" fallacy clear, and the then "intellect" occurs along with the 
human species. The human organism was surely the biological 
pattern that spawned the social level, but the intellectual LEVEL arose 
from the social LEVEL, nothing particularly to do with humans after 
that. Here Pirsig really messes things up: Social value as one 
intellectual "faction" and intellectual value another!!!. Why not biology 
as a third and inorganic value as a fourth intellectual "faction"  .... 
everything going on on this intellectual super-level. 

    "A social pattern which would be unaware of the next higher 
    level would be found among prehistoric people and the higher 
    primates when they exhibit social learning that is not 
    genetically hard-wired but yet is not symbolic".  

OK, here the "intellect-intelligence" confusion is colossal. Pirsig sees 
"intellect" as present with higher primates (apes) they just not knowing 
that their "intellect" was symbolic. Had he seen the aforementioned 
confusion it would have been OK. Apes "think" all right, but they are 
not of the social level so their thinking is not conveyed by language 
and definitely not of the intellectual level where thinking-by-language 
has become something symbolic "in their minds" that stands for 
something else "out there".  

    88.	I donTMt remember not responding, so it must have 
    been an oversight. I donTMt think the subject-object level is 
    identical with intellect. Intellect is simply thinking, and one can 
    think without involving the subject-object relationship. 
    Computer language is not primarily structured into subjects 
    and objects. Algebra has no subjects and objects.  

All is based on the mentioned intelligence-intellect confusion. I hate to 
see my hero err so enormously against his own grand system, but he 
obviously trusted the "camel swallowing" Pirsig adhereres not MOQ 
adherers. 

Bodvar